Sue BarnesLiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Revenue Canada implemented its missing children program in 1986. Customs officers are uniquely positioned to observe children entering Canada and are trained to detect children whose safety may be at risk and to identify suspected child abductors.

In 1991 our program received international recognition and in 1995 Revenue Canada, the RCMP and Citizenship and Immigration Canada collaborated to form an initiative called "Our Missing Children". Each department performs a necessary function in the delivery of this program.

Since the inception of this missing children program we have successfully recovered 450 missing and abducted children.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. In the last budget, the government said it would no longer fund the magnetic fusion centre in Varennes, without holding any consultations with Quebec, which provides 50 per cent of the money allocated to this program.

Since only 15 per cent of her department's budgets for energy research and development are spent in Quebec, how can the minister hit Quebec with more cuts, when we know that her department has always favoured Ontario Hydro, which is practically the only beneficiary of federal assistance in the area of nuclear energy?

Mr. Speaker, the minister responded to this question. She said we had to make choices. One of those choices was the viable CANDU business which brings significant benefits to Quebec. The sale of one CANDU-6 reactor abroad could bring over $100 million and 4,000 person years in contracts to Quebec companies.

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's answer only confirms what I said in my question.

How can the parliamentary secretary justify her government's cutting off funding for research on magnetic fusion, when Japan, Australia, China and many European Union countries are actually increasing their level of funding for this field of study, which they see as promising?

Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister just loves to stand in the House and tell us that if we do not save the CBC somehow Canada will blow apart.

She does her Canadiana routine all the time, but the difficulty is that it is this minister and this government doing all the cutting to the CBC. She cannot have it both ways. As a matter of fact, when she was talking about some special funding for it, we now find out, as a result of her comments on "Morningside" yesterday, that she has no new ideas.

Will she admit that in spite of the fact she keeps on talking about this Canadian institution and how she will save it, she has absolutely no financial plan?

Sheila CoppsLiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the chutzpah of the Reform Party to criticize the job we are trying to do in establishing alternative sources of funding for the CBC when the official policy of the Reform Party vis à vis the CBC is to get rid of it.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Deputy Prime Minister does not know that the position of the Reform Party is to privatize the CBC, not to get rid of it. We want to maintain a viable commercial operation.

The minister seems to be acting a little like a shopaholic in her overall portfolio. She has found $6 million for a fly a flag program her deputies do not know where from, $150,000 for lacrosse, but the most instructive one is what she did with respect to Radio-Canada International. Of the $16 million she found for Radio-Canada International, she picked the pocket of the CBC by $8 million. She removed $8 million from the CBC.

Sheila CoppsLiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should not be surprised at being accused of being a shopaholic, which of course is a term that one would only offer to a woman, by the member who only this morning attended a program by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to stamp out stereotyping.

The CBC's board of directors was not only happy, it was excited about the possibility of investing again in Radio Canada International, because like the Government of Canada, it believes that it will be an important and a crucial voice for Canada into the 21st century.

I am only sorry that the Reform Party's cultural policy amounts to less than the cost of a cup of coffee.

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.

The United States trade representative, Mickey Kantor, has issued a very dangerous interpretation of annex 2 of NAFTA's impact on Canadians not for profit health providers.

In light of the fact that Kantor's position would throw open our medicare system to U.S. corporate health care giants, I want to ask the Minister for International Trade, if he will now join with B.C. health minister Andrew Petter and other provinces in clearly repudiating this U.S. position? Will he stand up for Canada's medicare system?

As members of the House should be aware, the Arctic ecosystem is very fragile. It is beset by toxic pollutants from within the Arctic region and countries of the south.

The member and I both participated at the Yellowknife Conference for Arctic Parliamentarians and later that week the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development participated at the Conference for Arctic Ministers in Inuvik.

I am very pleased to say that as a result of these two conferences, the Minister of the Environment has made an announcement about the establishment of an Arctic council that will occur this summer. This council will address the problems faced by circumpolar nations in the Arctic.

As Canadians we should be very proud of this international co-operative effort.

Mr. Speaker, it has obviously occurred to a number of us during the course of debate when tempers fray or when emotions get away with us that we say certain things which are not true or which we regret. It has certainly happened to me.

Under those circumstances, when the error of the statement is pointed out, it is normal that one would stand and withdraw it. I would ask that the member for Medicine Hat to withdraw the statement he made in the preamble to his question. I can tell him that the statement is not true, is inaccurate and has no foundation in fact. I ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of privilege. I would like to point out also that there were many promises made on the GST. On behalf of the Canadian people I would like to raise that as a question of privilege.

It is true, as the hon. minister pointed out, that in the course of debate sometimes we make statements we believe to be accurate that are not totally accurate.

Situations such as this have occurred on a number of occasions. With regard to the minister rising on a question of privilege, I would say that this is a point of debate surely. The minister is on the record as clarifying this statement from his perspective.

I would rule that this is not a question of privilege and that the point has been taken where there was a statement made by one member and refuted by another. Surely that is debate. I would rule that this is not a question of privilege.

Herb GrayLiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I draw to your attention page 142 of Beauchesne's, citation 485, unparliamentary language:

485.(1) Unparliamentary words may be brought to the attention of the House either by the Speaker or by any Member. When the question is raised by a Member it must be as a point of order and not as a question of privilege.

(2) Except during the Question Period, the proper time to raise such a point of order is when the words are used and not afterwards.